18494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 27, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07295 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9908–18– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF50 

Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw 

federal water quality standards 

applicable to waters of the state of 

Florida now that Florida has adopted 

and EPA has approved relevant state 

standards. On December 6, 2010, EPA 

published a rule finalizing numeric 

nutrient standards for Florida’s lakes, 

springs, and flowing waters outside of 

the South Florida Nutrient Watershed 

Region. EPA established these water 

quality standards to protect Florida’s 

Class I and III freshwaters from nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution. On 

November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and 

September 26, 2013, EPA approved 

numeric nutrient standards adopted by 

the state of Florida for certain waters in 

the state. 

Some of the water body types and 

provisions covered by state-adopted 

water quality standards were also 

included in EPA’s final inland waters 

rule (criteria for Florida’s lakes and 

springs, approaches to protect 

downstream lakes, and a provision for 

developing Site-Specific Alternative 

Criteria). EPA is now proposing to 

withdraw the overlapping federallypromulgated water quality standards to 

allow Florida to implement their stateadopted, EPA-approved water quality 

standards to address nutrient pollution 

in Florida’s waters. Additionally, EPA is 

not finalizing three 2012 federal 

proposed rules related to nutrient 

pollution in Florida. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

a docket facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

(202) 566–2426, and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica Fleisig, U.S. EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Which water bodies are affected by this 

action? 

B. What entities may be affected by this 

action? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. Background on EPA’s Inland Rule, 

Amended Determinations, and Approval 

of State Criteria 

B. 2014 District Court Ruling and 

Modification of Consent Decree 

C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Criteria 

for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18495 

1Subsection 62–302.400(1), Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.) provides as follows: 

All surface waters of the state have been 

classified according to designated uses as follows: 

CLASS I Potable Water Supplies 

CLASS II Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting 

CLASS III Fish Consumption; Recreation, 

Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

2EPA defined the South Florida Nutrient 

Watershed Region as the area south of Lake 

Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River watershed 

(including Estero Bay) to the west of Lake 

Okeechobee, and the St. Lucie watershed to the east 

of Lake Okeechobee. 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

I. General Information 

A. Which water bodies are affected by 

this action? 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

withdraw federally promulgated water 

quality standards (WQS) from a group of 

inland waters of the United States 

within Florida. Specifically, as defined 

below and in EPA’s December 6, 2010 

final inland waters rule (40 CFR 131.43), 

EPA is proposing to withdraw the 

federal criteria for Florida’s Class I and 

III 1 freshwater lakes and springs, as 

well as downstream protection values 

(DPVs) to protect downstream lakes and 

a provision for developing site-specific 

alternative criteria (SSAC) in all water 

bodies. 

EPA’s final inland waters rule defined 

‘‘Predominantly fresh waters’’ to mean 

surface waters in which the chloride 

concentration at the surface is less than 

1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA 

defined ‘‘Lake’’ as a slow-moving or 

standing body of freshwater that 

occupies an inland basin that is not a 

stream, spring, or wetland. Finally, EPA 

defined ‘‘Spring’’ as a site at which 

ground water flows through a natural 

opening in the ground onto the land 

surface or into a body of surface water. 

B. What entities may be affected by this 

action? 

This action proposes to withdraw 

federal WQS applicable to certain 

waters in Florida for which the state has 

adopted criteria that EPA has 

determined are consistent with the 

CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations. Citizens concerned with 

water quality, as well as the state of 

Florida—who was previously required 

to implement federal numeric nutrient 

criteria before this withdrawal, but will 

no longer be required to do so after this 

withdrawal is finalized—may be 

interested in this rulemaking. Also, 

entities discharging nitrogen or 

phosphorus to waters of Florida may be 

interested in this rulemaking because 

WQS are used in determining National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

confidential business information (CBI) 

to EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR Part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

D. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. The official public docket 

consists of the document specifically 

referenced in this action, any public 

comments received, and other 

information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Docket telephone 

number is (202) 566–2426. A reasonable 

fee will be charged for copies. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, 

EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets 

at http://www.regulations.gov to view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the Docket Facility 

identified in Section I.D(1). 

II. Background 

A. Background on EPA’s Inland Rule, 

Amended Determinations, and 

Approval of State Criteria 

On December 6, 2010, pursuant to a 

January 14, 2009 EPA determination 

and December 30, 2009 consent decree, 

EPA published the inland waters rule to 

establish numeric nutrient criteria for 

Florida’s lakes, springs, and flowing 

waters outside of the South Florida 

Nutrient Watershed Region.2 These 

criteria also included three approaches 

for deriving DPVs, applicable to flowing 

waters at the point where they enter 

downstream lakes, which would ensure 

protection of downstream lakes as 

required by EPA’s implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 131.10(b)). 

On November 30, 2012, EPA amended 

its January 14, 2009 determination 

stating that numeric criteria for 

downstream protection are not 

necessary to meet CWA requirements in 

Florida. This was because Florida’s 

approach to downstream protection, in 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
18496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

combination with nutrient criteria for 

nutrient-sensitive downstream water 

bodies, achieves timely and effective 

protection of downstream waters. With 

the additional clarification provided in 

Florida’s ‘‘Implementation of Florida’s 

Numeric Nutrient Standards’’ rulereferenced document on the scope of 

waters covered by state-adopted 

numeric nutrient criteria, EPA amended 

its January 2009 determination for a 

second time on June 28, 2013, 

concluding that numeric nutrient 

criteria are not necessary for a limited 

number of waters in the state of Florida 

(specifically, flowing waters in the 

South Florida Region, marine lakes, 

tidally-influenced flowing waters, and 

conveyances primarily used for water 

management purposes with marginal or 

poor stream habitat components). 

These actions, coupled with EPA’s 

November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and 

September 26, 2013 approvals of 

Florida’s numeric nutrient criteria, 

result in Florida having EPA-approved 

numeric nutrient criteria for all fresh 

water lakes, springs, estuaries and 

coastal waters, and the majority of 

flowing waters in the state. 

B. 2014 District Court Ruling and 

Modification of Consent Decree 

On January 7, 2014, the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Florida granted an EPA motion to 

modify the consent decree (Case No. 

4:08–cv–324–RH, Florida Wildlife Fed’n 

v. McCarthy, 2014 WL 51360 (N.D. Fla. 

Jan. 7, 2014)). As a result of this ruling, 

EPA is no longer obligated to 

promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for 

any of Florida’s waters, and will 

therefore not be finalizing its November 

30, 2012 federal proposed rules 

addressing Florida’s estuaries and 

coastal waters, inland waters in the 

South Florida Nutrient Watershed 

Region, and the remanded portions of 

the inland waters rule (77 FR 74923 and 

77 FR 74985, December 18, 2012). In 

addition, EPA will no longer be 

finalizing its December 14, 2012 

proposal to temporarily stay portions of 

the inland waters rule. EPA can now 

withdraw already promulgated federal 

criteria so Florida’s nutrient criteria can 

take effect. 

For more specifics on the Agency and 

court actions leading to this proposal, 

refer to the following: 

EPA Determination Regarding Florida 

and Consent Decree: http://

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/

florida_consent.cfm. 

Florida Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria in 2012 and EPA Approval: 

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epaflorida. 

EPA’s 2012 Proposed Rulemaking: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/

rulesregs/florida_index.cfm. 

2013 EPA and FDEP Agreement in 

Principle and Path Forward: http://

content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/

FLDEP–713cfb. 

C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal 

Criteria for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs 

Florida now has state-adopted, EPAapproved criteria for lakes and springs 

that are applicable for CWA purposes. 

Thus there is no need for overlapping 

federal criteria for such waters. With 

respect to federal DPVs, EPA 

determined on November 30, 2012 that 

numeric criteria for downstream 

protection are not necessary in Florida 

and that same day approved Florida’s 

quantitative downstream protection 

approach. Finally, since Florida has its 

own process for developing SSAC, a 

federal SSAC process is unnecessary. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to withdraw the 

federal criteria for lakes and springs, 

federal DPVs, and the federal SSAC 

provision that took effect on January 6, 

2013 (with the exception of the federal 

SSAC provision that went into effect on 

February 4, 2011) and solicits comments 

on this proposal. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

information-collection burden because 

it is administratively withdrawing 

federal requirements that are no longer 

needed in Florida. It does not include 

any information-collection, reporting, or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201 (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule proposes to remove federallypromulgated water quality standards 

addressing nutrient pollution in Florida 

in order to allow Florida to implement 

their state-adopted, EPA-approved water 

quality standards. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule 

proposes to remove federallypromulgated water quality standards 

addressing nutrient pollution in Florida 

in order to allow Florida to implement 

their state-adopted, EPA-approved water 

quality standards. Thus, Executive 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18497 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any tribal 

government. It does not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 and because the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action do not present 

a disproportionate risk to children. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure. 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities, 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because: (1) Florida’s WQS apply to 

waters across the state, and thus this 

action will not disproportionately affect 

any one group over another, and (2) EPA 

has previously determined, based on the 

most current science, that Florida’s 

adopted and EPA-approved criteria are 

protective of human health and aquatic 

life. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Florida, 

Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, 

Nutrients, Water quality standards. 

Dated: March 26, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 131 as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

§ 131.43 [Removed] 

■ 2. Section 131.43 is removed. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07387 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 761 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396; FRL–9909–00– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG79 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for 

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

is proposing to take action on a petition 

from the United States Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) to import foreignmanufactured polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

‘‘manufacture’’ is defined to include the 

import of chemical substances into the 

customs territory of the United States. 

With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3) 

of TSCA bans the manufacture, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs. One of these 

exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B), 

which gives EPA authority to grant 

petitions to import PCBs into the 

customs territory of the United States 

for a period of up to 12 months, 

provided EPA can make certain findings 

by rule. On April 23, 2013, EPA 

received a petition from DLA, a 

component of the United States 

Department of Defense (DOD), to import 

foreign-manufactured PCBs that DOD 

currently owns in Japan for disposal in 

the United States. EPA is proposing to 

grant DLA’s petition as of July 1, 2014. 

This proposal to grant the petition, if 

finalized, would allow DLA to 

manufacture (i.e., import) certain PCBs 

for disposal. EPA has granted two 

previous exemptions in 2003 and 2007 

to DLA for similar petitions to import 

PCBs for disposal. Without an 

exemption granted by EPA, DLA would 

not be allowed to import the PCB waste 

to the U.S. for proper disposal. In fact, 

if the exemption is not granted, it is very 

likely that DLA will not be able to find 

any country willing to accept and 

properly dispose of the PCB waste. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1